The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Public Ignorance and Misinformation About Immigration
A new study shows it is widespread on several issues, in ways that bolster restrictionism.

Widespread political ignorance is a serious problem that both major-party presidential candidates are trying to exploit. A recent survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation finds extensive ignorance on the key issue of immigration. The study finds large numbers of people believe misinformation about immigration, while rejecting true statements about it.
For example, 51% believe it is "definitely true" or "probably true" that "Immigrants are causing an increase in violent crime in the U.S" (48% say this is definitely or probably false). In reality, immigrants, including undocumented immigrants, have much lower violent crime rates than native-born citizens. Similarly, 44% believe it is "definitely true" or "probably true" that "Immigrants are taking jobs and causing an increase in unemployment for people born in the U.S" (56% think this is definitely or probably false). Most economists conclude that immigration does not increase unemployment among natives, and deportation of undocumented immigrants actually destroys more jobs for native-born workers than it creates than it creates (see also here).
The KFF study also finds that 59% believe it is false or probably false that "Undocumented immigrants pay billions of dollars in U.S. taxes every year" (40% think it is true or probably true). The truth is undocumented immigrants pay almost $100 billion in taxes per year, most of that going to the federal government.
The KFF survey does find respondents overwhelmingly get one point right: 84% believe it is "true" or "probably true" that "[i]mmigrants help fill labor shortages in certain industries like agriculture, construction, and health care." These are indeed all industries where immigrants are major contributors. A recent study finds that deportation of undocumented migrants reduces housing construction and thereby increases housing costs. Immigrants are also disproportionately represented in health care, filling many critical needs. The same is true in agriculture.
There is a possible flaw in the KFF crime question. I think the intent of the question and the way most readers probably interpret it is to ask whether immigration increases the crime rate. But, read literally, it could potentially be interpreted as asking whether immigrants commit any violent crimes at all. If a million immigrants come in and even one commits a violent crime, that could be considered an "increase" in violent crime in the sense that it increases the total number of violent crimes committed on US soil, even if the crime rate goes down substantially. I suspect most respondents are not interpreting the question that way. If they were, we would not see a massive partisan split in responses, with the vast majority of Republicans saying immigrants do increase violent crime, while most Democrats take the opposite position. Almost everyone presumably recognizes that some immigrants (like some members of virtually any large group) do commit violent crimes, even if the rate is low. But it's possible that the result here is skewed by a minority of respondents interpreting the question very literally, and thereby giving different answers than they would if they realized it was about crime rates.
Previous studies also find widespread ignorance on immigration policy issues, including the number of immigrants (voters tend to greatly overestimate it), their crime rate (ditto), and more.
Overall, public ignorance about immigration likely increases restrictionist sentiment. If many people realized that immigrants have low crime rates, pay more into the public fisc than they take out, and do not increase unemployment, public opinion would likely shift in a more pro-immigration direction. These false perceptions aren't the only possible justifications for immigration restrictions. But they are important considerations for many voters.
Obviously, there are other issues where ignorance skews public opinion in a more left-wing direction. Left-wing voters are far from immune to ignorance and bias. But that in no way mitigates the harm caused by ignorance on the right (and vice versa). Ultimately, political ignorance is a widespread problem on both sides of the political spectrum. It leads to both parties offering worse policies than they likely would otherwise.
There is no easy solution to the problem of political ignorance. But I assess a range of possible options in a recent article on "Top-Down and Bottom-Up Solutions to the Problem of Political Ignorance, and in my book Democracy and Political Ignorance: Why Smaller Government is Smarter.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Bullshyte.
It's just that the crimes that the TRESPASSERS commit aren't reported because it is impossible to prosecute them.
And it isn't that the TRESPASSERS take jobs from Americans as much as they depress the wages that Americans are paid.
The TRESPASSERS are thieves, and should be treated the way that thieves are treated in their home countries.
Dr. Ed 2, what is your Native American tribal affiliation?
"It’s just that the crimes that the TRESPASSERS commit aren’t reported because it is impossible to prosecute them."
Is that as true as everything else you have said?
Ever hear of King Phillip's War?
By your standards, we should be lining the trespassers up against walls AND SHOOTING THEM.
And if we let them practice law without a license, as we let them drive without a license, I think you would be singing a very different song.
MORE MACHINE GUNS......
What? Are you descended from the natives who fought King Philip's War? Which tribe?
What happened with the native tribes could be considered right of conquest.
What is happening on the border now has no legal defense, contrary to the views of Somin.
Two Points :
1. It’s intersting to see how determined the Right is to ignore evidence & testimony from Springfield that the Haitians are an economic godsend to the community. They act like a little child with fingers in his ears making loud noises whenever the point is raised. But that just illustrates one of the many mental illinesses common to their hive-mind thinking:
Today’s wingnut is obssessed and addicted to zero-sum thought. Their tiny little minds and dead-cold hearts are always ate-up with frenzied worry someone somewhere is getting something they should have. On the most bizarrely tenuous grounds, they’re convinced “those other people” are cheating them somehow. Thus their formless jealousy & anger whenever some demagogue winds the little knob in their back & points them towards the lastest “Other” being targeted.
2. Which brings us to the historical question: Do they ever tire of being some huckster’s dupe? Don’t they know this scam has played out over & over throughout American history and they are ALWAYS wrong?
After all, Trump and Vance selling crude lies isn’t anything new (though the dogs & cats bit is). We’ve seen the same carnival-barker politicians doing the same con-the-rubes spiel against the Irish, Catholics, Germans, Jews, Chinese, and Japanese (among others). It’s always the same rhetoric. The same dupe mob. The same anger, panic & fear. And it’s always been wrong.
Over and over thru history, it’s always wrong.
Are you trying to argue that the Haitians are just like the Irish, because the Germans were just like the Irish? Nope. Not the same.
At the time, it was legal for employers to post "Irish Catholics Need Not Apply."
Can you imagine an employer posting "Niggers Need Not Apply"?
Look, Dr. Ed seized the opportunity to use the n-word!
Economic Godsend my arse.
They are lowering the wages of AMERICAN WORKERS and that's what destroyed Rome.
Why would the wages of American workers affect Rome in any way?
Are you REALLY that obtuse?
Are you REALLY that bad of a writer?
My wife has been in the hospital for several weeks battling a severe antibiotic-resistant infection. A large number of the hospital staff from doctors to nurse’s aids are immigrants: Africa, India, Mexico, the Philippines, Ukraine, etc. An elderly man in the next room shouted at the Indian nurse attending him, “Why are you here taking jobs from Americans.” Her reply, “Sir, I AM an American.”
grb, there is at least one historical instance where to target immigrants was, briefly at least, arguably a legitimate concern. In the earliest days of mass Irish immigration, there were prominent Irish clerics who advocated publicly for Irish immigrants to America to organize to overthrow the Constitution, and replace it with theocratic governance.
That was at least a part of what motivated the Know Nothings. Of course experience quickly proved the Know Nothings mistaken, and the Irish clerics out of touch.
Irish immigrants themselves intended no such thing. They could not be persuaded to do anything except their level best to improve their opportunities with hard work. That instance thus became an early cautionary example of what to avoid, instead of what to do.
I mention it only to correct somewhat an otherwise unreflective historical treatment of the Know Nothings. They did not have so much benefit of historical experience as we do now to guide their judgments. And of course pure bigotry was another thread motivating at least some, if not many, among the Know Nothings.
Another example from history worth remembering in the same vein is that Benjamin Franklin was initially hesitant to welcome ethnic German immigrants to Pennsylvania. Not too hesitant, however. He did partner in a German language newspaper venture.
Man, I thought I was used to your hopeful hyperbole by now, but this one was so over the top I couldn't help but spray coffee all over my laptop. You really should take up comedy.
Mr. I-Don't-Make-Things-Up strikes again!
Note that the focus of the post was immigrants, but — contra-Brett — people like Dr. Ed who hate immigrants do not distinguish between legal and illegal. They hate them all. One minor aside about "undocumented" was enough to send Dr. Ed into a rampage.
They do not.
They are not. Theft involves taking someone else's property. They are not in fact doing that.
Well, according to your orange god, the way that thieves are treated in their home countries is that they're sent to the U.S.!
Birthright is property.
Dr. Ed is gibberish.
Well, according to your orange god, the way that thieves are treated in their home countries is that they’re sent to the U.S.!
Well played, sir. Well played.
Nieporent, you would be hard pressed to show that immigrants have not depressed wages for Americans in the less-skilled construction trades, such as framing, roofing, painting, and sheet rock installation, not to mention unskilled labor. On the other hand, plumbers, electricians, joiners, sheet metal workers, cabinet makers, and probably equipment operators have at least held their own, and arguably benefited. Contractors may have benefited most of all, except maybe landscape contractors, who at least in my area seem to be getting entirely replaced by immigrants.
Although immigrants commit most crimes at a lower rate than native-born Americans, to answer the question of how immigration affects the crime rate would also require considering the rate at which the children of those immigrants commit crimes. I think the data generally shows that the children of immigrants, at least certain groups of immigrants, commit crimes at a higher than average rate, and as a result, there is reason to think that immigration at least from certain groups, raises the long-term crime rate.
Illegal border crossers are all criminals. The crime rate is 100%.
#stopconflatinglegalandillegal
Longtobefree : “#stopconflatinglegalandillegal”
Which is why Trump & Vance are busy smearing perfectly legal immigrants with grotesque sleazy lies.
Who do you think you’re fooling, LTBF?
The Haitians are not perfectly legal immigrants. They have not gone through the regular immigration process.
The Haitians are indeed perfectly legal immigrants. You, on the other hand, should be deported.
No. An immigrant is someone who lawfully comes to live in the USA permanently. The Haitians have temporary visas that expire next year. They are not legal immigrants.
“You, on the other hand, should be deported.” LOL
They are criminals who should be executed.
Or at least deported...
Aside from this being pedantically pointless, it's not even relevant; many 'illegal immigrants' are visa overstays rather than border crossers, and the former is not criminal.
That's right. People say immigrants commit crimes at higher rates because first and second generation immigrants do. Somin is ignorant of the facts, as usual.
Roger S : "People say ...."
Well, people "say" the Haitians are eating cats and dogs, but we know that's being spread by liars. Is there anymore truth in your shtick?
Not much, actually. According to the Pew Research Organization, by the third generation of immigrants, they commit crimes at the rate as all the other Americans around them.
Probaby not the "facts" you want to hear, Roger S, but that's the price you pay for ignorance....
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2013/10/15/crime-rises-among-second-generation-immigrants-as-they-assimilate/
The article says that second generation immigrants have much higher crime rates that first generation immigrants.
And that both first generation and second generation immigrants have lower crime rates than native born residents, you imbecile.
It would hardly be shocking if legal immigrants had lower crime rates than native born Americans, given that legal immigrants have to demonstrate a clean record in order to immigrate to the US, while native born Americans undergo no such filter.
The next generation do not pass through that filter, so their crime rate is higher...
But Somin is opposed to the very immigration restrictions responsible for this admirable record. And, of course, typically insists on conflating legal and illegal immigrants, since his position is that the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to have immigration laws.
"It would hardly be shocking if legal immigrants had lower crime rates than native born Americans, given that legal immigrants have to demonstrate a clean record in order to immigrate to the US, while native born Americans undergo no such filter."
This is a cogent and logical argument. It likely does explain, at least in part, the lower crime rate. But keep going.....
There is also significant pressure on illegal immigrants not to commit crimes as that will very likely lead to their deportation. It's in their interest, more so than citizens or even legal immigrants, not to have interactions with law enforcement.
"his position is that the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to have immigration laws"
That is not his position, Brett.
You can easily argue against his actual position and don't need this misrepresentation. The fact that you apparently feel you need to misrepresent his position suggests you aren't confident in your argument against his actual position.
“That is not his position, Brett.”
Somin actually does hold that position, FYI.
I’m somewhat inclined to agree, actually, that the federal government was not delegated power over immigration. Although this would mean that states can regulate immigration including interstate immigration.
Somin actually does hold that position, FYI.
His position is not that the federal government lacks the power to have any immigration laws, but he does believe in far fewer powers vis a vis immigration than I realized. Brett's characterization is fair. Mea culpa.
IMMIGRATION, FREEDOM, AND THE CONSTITUTION
Ilya Somin
Antonin Scalia Law School,
George Mason University
“We can restrict the movement of terrorists, violent
criminals, people with contagious diseases, and so forth. But the key point here is that we can and sometimes should restrict such movement regardless of whether the person in question is a native-born citizen or not, and regardless of where they happened to be born. I am not arguing there should never be restrictions of any kind, merely that those restrictions should not be based on who you chose for your parents and on what side of a line on the map you happen to be born.”
So, you see, his position is, essentially, that citizenship means precisely nothing in relation to the right to enter the country. Sure, you can keep out a terrorist, or a plague carrier, or a rapist. (But not a non-violent criminal like an embezzler or burglar!) But you could do that even if they were a citizen!
That’s a pretty radical position, if you think about it.
“I will end by focusing on Congress’s supposed power over immigration. If you read Article I of the Constitution, you rapidly come to a very simple conclusion: there is no general power to restrict immigration there.”
His position really is that the federal government has no constitutional authority to have immigration laws AT ALL. He concedes some limited authority to restrict border crossings, applicable to citizens and non-citizens indistinguishably, and that’s it. But that’s not a power to regulate immigration, as it’s normally understood.
"There is also significant pressure on illegal immigrants not to commit crimes as that will very likely lead to their deportation."
Balancing that is the fact that every illegal immigrant, save those brought over by their parents as minors, has actively chosen, and in most cases gone to great effort and often expense, to violate our immigration laws. You might say that, while legal immigrants have been vetted for a law abiding tendency, illegal immigrants have been anti-vetted.
Further, as it is generally illegal for them to be employed in the US, and they frequently have need for ID which identifies them as something other than what they are, they'll usually be involved in ongoing violations of the law.
And jaywalkers are more likely to be murderers. Sure.
Riiight. Traveling thousands of miles to enter a country illegally, and stay there illegally, it's really just the same as crossing a street somewhere other than a crosswalk.
You're not even trying to sound serious.
"You’re not even trying to sound serious."
No. You're not.
Overstaying a visa is, frankly, less public a flaunting of laws than is jaywalking. Including because overstaying a visa isn't criminal, it's a civil violation.
You're disingenuously trying to conflate wanting to be in the U.S. with a criminal propensity. That's childishly stupid.
And the statistics, again, show you are just wrong that undocumented immigrants are more likely to commit crimes. They are less likely to commit crimes. But Brett wouldn't be Brett if he didn't consider himself a latter day Descartes who can get to the truth via pure reason more quickly and accurately than all the criminologists and statisticians in the world.
Commit less crime, are arrested for less crime or are prosecuted and reported less? There are many catch and release programs, deportation before trial or reporting as native (well, refusing to report) that all depress any reported statistic.
1. Anyone using the idiotic term undocumented is not to be taken seriously and has already told you how they view inconvenient facts.
2. Crime rates of black males skew the native born statistics. In actuality, immigrants will in fact be increasing the crime rate of the vast majority of places in the US where they wind up. Being the second most crime prone demographic isn't an achievement.
3. It is a fact that they are causing an increase in crime. Saying the RATE isn't going up is a different argument. People who are killed and raped by illegals would not have been killed and raped if they weren't in the country.
Likewise for those raped and killed by native born Americans. Unless you are competing for a seat on the bigotry train, the crime rate is the only legitimate comparison.
1. Absolutely agree. We're not talking about people who had their wallets lifted, they're documented, they just have the wrong or sometimes forged documents. It's like calling a bank robber an undocumented bank patron.
2. You have a point here: The over-all crime rate in America includes crimes committed in ultra violent urban ghettos. Unless illegal immigrants are moving there preferentially, they likely are raising the crime rate where they end up, even if we were to credit the claim that their crime rate is lower than the American average.
3. Yes, every crime committed by an illegal immigrant is a crime that should never have happened. Likewise every crime committed against one.
Correct. Low skill immigrants may have a lower crime rate than black males, but they have a much higher crime rate than white and Asian Americans.
The other question is the distribution and nature of crimes committed. There has been recent press about particularly violent gangs from Latin America taking root in US cities. Those gang members are presumably a tiny fraction of undocumented immigrants. But, a tiny fraction of a large number can still commit a large number of very serious crimes. Looking only at the number of undocumented immigrants who commit crimes treats a shoplifter the same as a serial murdered.
The pro-immigration lobby may argue that the Latin American immigrants and aliens are no worse than the urban Blacks. Maybe not, but we do not want to import criminals who commit crimes at rates like Blacks.
Shorter Roger S: "N-word n-word n-word."
Somin frequently claims about public ignorance when he finds that everyone disagrees with him, but has he ever gotten the facts on anything correct? His figures are slanted propaganda values.
Yes, immigrants take jobs from native Americans. It happens everyday, across many industries. Many foreigners are brought in for exactly that purpose.
Crime data is useless, unless it is broken down by national origin and race, and unless it includes categories for first and second generation immigration. Somin does not do that.
Articles that conflate immigrants with illegals are dishonest trash. And their authors are lying liars in pursuit of a Kalergi agenda.
Even more so when they accuse everyone else of being ignorant for disagreeing.
Ilya the Lesser complaining about the provision of misleading information on immigration to the public.
Now THAT is chutzpah.
If the migrants were white skinned the results of this survey would be quite different.
You mean white skinned migrants would be more likely to obey the law?
In todays New Yorker there is an interview with Republican Congressman Mike Lawler which includes this passage:
Lawler told me that he had experienced the city’s recent problems firsthand. He’d been standing on the street in midtown Manhattan when, in his words, a “migrant on a bike” grabbed a chain off a young woman’s neck. “I grabbed his handlebar, and we started tussling,” Lawler said. Eventually, the man rode off. “This poor girl is chasing after him,” Lawler said. “It was her grandfather’s chain.” How did he know the assailant was a migrant? “The cops came,” he said, not answering the question. “They’re seeing this constantly.”
If he doesn’t speak English, it’s unlikely he grew up here.
One way to spot Central American migrants is by height. It's almost shocking how short they are - on average a head shorter than native born US people.
So, the guy who's still pushing long debunked studies of illegal (not 'undocumented') immigrant crime, has the cast iron gall to complain about "misinformation".
His ignorance about this topic is profound and troubling, but as he would say, it is rational.
"still pushing long debunked studies"
We've been through this, the debunking was debunked.
It is impossible to determine the immediate truth of any of the things that are here labeled as “misinformation”. It is going to take years of sorting and sifting to understand them enough to make that kind of judgment call.
When I was a bright-eyed lad still at University, I discovered in my very last semester that I had neglected to take one of the required entry-level courses on US History. So, I dutifully sat through a huge class taught by teacher assistants where we were given the Reader’s Digest version of history.
At the end of the semester, we were given a final exam which was almost entirely multiple-choice, except for one question: “What was the cause of the Civil War?” We were given about 2 inches of blank space into which we could write “the” answer.
I was frozen in my seat. Of course I knew the one word answer they wanted me to give. But there were entire bookshelves filed with answers to that question in our university’s library. I had personally read many of them and written theme papers on the topic.
So what to do? Write the word they wanted, pass the course, get the degree, get the heck out of academia and on with my life, or stand by my principles and refuse to go along with the charade?
In the end, I crossed out the phrase, “the cause”, from the question, replaced it with “a cause”, and filled in the required answer. This apparently worked.
But I learned much from that experience. I learned that anyone who claims to know “the” truth about history is, at best, glossing over all the interesting parts, and at worst, isn’t really trying to understand the past, but shape the present.
I take this lesson right into today. There is no such thing as the “right side” of history. “Misinformation” is largely in the eye of the beholder.
So Somin links to the one Texas study. Reason.com ALWAYS links to the that same study from the Texas Department of Public Safety. It’s like the holy grail of studies because it’s the only one that gives them the conclusions they want. What would they do without it? Well the study has some flaws, not the least of which is that the conclusions entirely depend on an estimate of the overall size of the illegal immigrant population, which is entirely a guess.
If illegal immigrants really do have a crime rate lower than native born US people, then the implication is that we should replace US citizens with these newcomers. Which is what people like Somin want.
It also begs the question – if they are so law-abiding, why are their home countries so violent that they have to flee?
In the case of Haiti, it goes back to the slave revolt of 1791.
So, the indigenous natives of America should be happy with the European immigrants who came in the 15th, 16th, 27th, 18th and 19th centuries? Just a bunch of kind souls looking for economic opportunity and peace? Totally improved the native economy and culture!!!!! Got it.
Those immigrants were philosophers. Followers of Locke, actually, who expressly approved disposession of the indigenous Americans.
2 words
Moe-hammad Atta
If an illegal commits one crime (Besides being here illegally) they've increased the amount of crime being committed in the US. Q.E.D.
If illegals were sent home, the amount of crime committed in the US would go down.
Somin addressed this juvenile point in the OP.
Yes, and if people would stop having babies, there would be less crime too.
The thing is, with immigrants, if you deport them the crime rate (which is all anyone really cares about) will go down because it is well-documented that immigrants commit fewer crimes than native born citizens.
NEWS ALERT: Trump says ‘I told you so’ after ICE data shows over 600,000 criminal illegal immigrants roaming
"ICE reported at least 660,000 criminal illegal immigrants who have been released into the U.S., including over 13,000 convicted murderers and over 25,000 convicted of rape, sexual assault and other sex offenses."
There is a HUGE logic fail in this analysis. You say:
"For example, 51% believe it is "definitely true" or "probably true" that "Immigrants are causing an increase in violent crime in the U.S" (48% say this is definitely or probably false). In reality, immigrants, including undocumented immigrants, have much lower violent crime rates than native-born citizens."
The question is about the NUMBER of violent crimes. Those have undeniably increased due to violent immigrants.
But the following "In reality" claim is about RATES of violent crimes, which is a very different subject.
Seems the "Ignorance" is on the side of the authors, not the public.
Best to all,
w.